An EWS candidate exceeding the UR cutoff must be considered for unreserved appointment on merit.

The applicant applied for appointment as Primary Teacher (PRT) pursuant to Advertisement No. 16/2022 under the EWS category.

He obtained 139.7008 normalized marks, exceeding both the Unreserved (UR) cut-off of 134.9098 and the EWS cut-off of 127.2099, and was placed in the provisional merit list at Serial No. 1582 under the UR category.

He was issued an offer of appointment dated 30.11.2023, requiring him to join by 21.12.2023.

The respondents objected that the EWS certificate initially submitted by the applicant was valid only for 2021–2022 and did not satisfy the requirement applicable on the application cut-off date, 26.12.2022.

Although he sought extensions and asserted that he was ready and willing to join, the respondents withdrew the appointment offer on 15.03.2024 on the ground of non-joining.

Whether an applicant who claimed EWS reservation but secured marks above the UR cut-off and was placed in the UR merit list could be considered for appointment against a UR vacancy despite failure to produce a valid EWS certificate.

Whether withdrawal of the appointment offer on the ground of non-joining was sustainable when the applicant alleged that the respondents themselves prevented him from joining by insisting on production of an EWS certificate.

Whether the alleged production of EWS certificates from different jurisdictions and non-disclosure of previous employment justified cancellation of the applicant’s merit-based appointment.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a candidate seeking reservation must satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, including possession of the requisite certificate on the relevant cut-off date; however, failure to establish entitlement to reservation does not by itself bar consideration against a UR vacancy where the candidate independently satisfies the general eligibility conditions and obtains marks above the UR cut-off.

Relying on Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, W.P. (C) No. 237/2020, decided on 18.12.2020, the Tribunal held that the open category is available to candidates of all social categories selected on merit and is not a compartment restricted to unreserved candidates.

It also relied on Chand Suraj v. Union of India, Rev. Pet. No. 301/2023, decided on 29.11.2023, and Clause 7 of the Government of India O.M. dated 31.01.2019, which provide that an EWS candidate selected on merit against an unreserved vacancy is not to be counted against the EWS quota.

The Tribunal further applied the principle from Ms. Geeta Rani v. KVS & Ors., O.A. No. 3690/2023, that absence or inadequacy of a reservation certificate cannot alone defeat consideration for a UR vacancy where appointment is sought on the basis of independent merit.

The Tribunal distinguished between eligibility for EWS reservation and eligibility for appointment against a UR vacancy.

Although the applicant had initially claimed EWS reservation and his certificate was not accepted for that purpose, he had secured marks substantially above the UR cut-off and had himself been placed by the respondents in the UR merit list.

Consequently, the EWS certificate requirement could not be used to extinguish his independent claim to a UR appointment, particularly when he was not seeking any EWS relaxation or reserved vacancy.

The provisional nature of the offer permitted verification of documents, but the condition concerning the EWS certificate could not be extended to a merit-based UR appointment.

The allegations regarding certificates issued by different jurisdictions and omission of prior employment did not, without proof of deliberate fraud, materiality, or nexus with the applicant’s UR merit placement, justify cancellation of the appointment.

Further, if the applicant’s assertion that he was prevented from joining by the respondents was borne out by the record, withdrawal for non-joining was unsustainable; his repeated representations also demonstrated that he had not abandoned the appointment.

The memorandum dated 15.03.2024 withdrawing the offer of appointment dated 30.11.2023 was quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to restore the offer and permit the applicant to join as PRT against the UR category, subject to verification of his general eligibility and other appointment conditions, but without requiring an EWS certificate for the UR appointment.

The intervening period was to be dealt with under the applicable service rules, with consequential benefits such as seniority and pay fixation as admissible.

The O.A. was allowed without costs.